tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post1059144115039537110..comments2009-05-18T12:46:47.580-07:00Comments on Ethics in Science: Peer Review SymposiumMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09406323176431313733noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post-81989005055440759582009-02-24T20:14:00.000-08:002009-02-24T20:14:00.000-08:00I agree that the "necessary condition" statement n...I agree that the "necessary condition" statement needs more consideration and explanation. However, I also want to know how one is to apply scientific methods to the peer review process? And, who would decide what method to use? For example, would a group of "experts" get together and decide the best step-by-step process to use for peer review? I am assuming that this may be part of what is to be discussed at the symposium, but I hope that those who are holding the symposium do not think that it will be an easy process to determine what methods (if any) to apply.Rachel Westmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05213284107050567789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post-57368570272039310312009-02-24T19:22:00.000-08:002009-02-24T19:22:00.000-08:00I agree with Matthew that the statement "peer revi...I agree with Matthew that the statement "peer review is a necessary condition" is implausible. I guess the history and tradition of reviewing ideas and hypothesis (scientific or otherwise) since the Greek is a hard one to shed. Hence we are unable to think of a completely different procedure, though there have been some ideas but they are mostly either variants or fine-tuning of the present peer review system.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think that just as we are learning from this course that a more rational and better decision on research ethics can be achieved with a panel that includes people from various fields so should the candidates for reviewing papers. Obviously a biologist cannot review a physics paper but a biophysicist could review an applied physics paper with particular implication on biology. Unlike the 19th and 20th century the most of the sciences are no longer fundamental and most new emerging fields are inter-disciplinary, thus it makes sense to have reviewers from various field but whose common interests are similar.B.Lungsi Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16297696987557411897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post-7582682517912476132009-02-23T20:20:00.000-08:002009-02-23T20:20:00.000-08:00Interesting that they say that PR is a NECESSARY c...Interesting that they say that PR is a NECESSARY condition. This is, in its way both a strong and a weak statement. It's strong because it implies (implausibly I think) that peer review is the ONLY conceivable way of ensuring quality of published research — more precisely, that no system which did not participate in PR would result in quality publications. But it's also weak in regarding it as MERELY a necessary condition: as a condition that must be in place, but which may not alone be sufficient. The existence (and extent) of fraud in science indicates that this weak claim is probably right: just using peer review does not ensure the legitimacy of the materials so vetted.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406323176431313733noreply@blogger.com